No one on the planet thinks that there are no differences between men and women. The entire point of the equal rights movement is that it isn't okay to treat half the population as less because of those differences. I'm getting real tired of people deliberately misunderstanding things.

I've read hundreds of medical articles and have published a few myself. I've never heard accusations of "sexism" following any finding of differences between men and women. I've heard plenty of criticisms of analyses that did _not_ take into account differences in demographic and comorbid factors. If you don't take gender into account in your analyses, you're much, much less likely to be taken seriously (if you're even lucky enough to get published). The fact that men and women are acknowledged to be different isn't limited to some isolated part of biology that the evil feminists have yet to squelch. Anyone (feminist, misogynist, . . . pretty much everyone but the Creationists & IDers) who does research in any medical field learns to adjust/control for/account for differences by age, race, sex, comorbidity status, etc.

The author is debating a strawman feminist, not a real person. Less interesting than watching Clint Eastwood debate a chair.

I submit the quote from TFA Ignoring the entire field of biology in dedication to the farkette who scoffed at my biology argument a few weeks ago in some thread, when I reminded the women of fark, no matter how well you do in business or how much education you have, that little pussy of yours was meant to be stuffed full of dick.

Chiad:No one on the planet thinks that there are no differences between men and women. The entire point of the equal rights movement is that it isn't okay to treat half the population as less because of those differences. I'm getting real tired of people deliberately misunderstanding things.

It depends on who is speaking, and when, but over the years many feminists, and feminist scholars, feminist ideology trained politicians have asserted exactly that there are no differences.

Here is an amusing, interesting Norwegian documentary that documents these assertions in Norwegian society today. It's 38 minutes and seeks to explain how in Norway, one of the most feminist oriented, egalitarian societies, old stereotypes regarding preferences and professions seem stronger than ever.

I don't think you could draw broad conclusions about transgedered people, only because there are so many different varieties of transgendering. The cases of biological transsexuals, with people who have physical traits that derive from both sexes, would be radically different from people who are transgendered in a social sense. Hormone treatments would further confound matters.

While correct, TFA is a solution looking for a problem. I don't think feminists honestly believe that there aren't any biological differences between men and women. It's a well known fact that men and women have different neurological responses to the same stimuli. Those neurological responses, while not absolutely determinate, drive a lot of the behavior differences between men and women.

t3knomanser:RoyBatty: It depends on who is speaking, and when, but over the years many feminists, and feminist scholars, feminist ideology trained politicians have asserted exactly that there are no differences.

No they haven't. For example, no one has ever claimed that men can get pregnant. Except Danny Devito.

Seriously, I provided you a link of Norwegian scientists doing exactly that, please don't bother watching it, or responding to it, just insert some irrelevant whargarrbl.

tortilla burger:drive a lot of the behavior differences between men and women.

The confounding issue with this is the open question of how much behavior is truly derived biologically. Obviously, everything has a biological basis. But while that may lay a foundation, when we look at different cultures, we see such wildly divergent approaches to establishing gender roles. Activities that are considered "feminine" in one society are considered "masculine" in another. The only thing that seems universal (and I'm certain that there are counter-examples out there) are that women play a greater role in child-rearing. This makes a certain evolutionary sense, since they're far more invested in the project.

Slightly changing subjects, one of the things we take as biologically determined is sexual orientation. And while, again, there's certainly a biological component, "being gay" is clearly a social role. In our society, if you suck a dude's dick in front of an audience, you're not just gay, but super gay. In the Moche civilization, you wouldn't be gay- you'd be a priest. And not in the Catholic way- fellatio was part of their religious rites.

Really, your link contains people making the claim that men can carry children to term? I can't watch it at work, but I very much don't believe you. In fact, I am going to Farky you as a liar, because you are.

t3knomanser:RoyBatty: I provided you a link of Norwegian scientists doing exactly that,

Really, your link contains people making the claim that men can carry children to term? I can't watch it at work, but I very much don't believe you. In fact, I am going to Farky you as a liar, because you are.

Farky me however you would like.

I respond to Chiad's claim that feminists would never claim there are no differences between men and women by providing a documentary where Norwegian scientists do exactly that over and over.

You come in to say that unless I can find someone that says men can give birth that I have failed to make my claim, which of course has very little to do with my claim, Chiad's claim, or the documentary.

I point that out and you respond you need to farky me as a liar.

Hey, go for it. Whatever.

Of course, there have now been at least two men who have given birth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_pregnancy) and Robert Winston, MD, scientist, says that men could give birth.

a pioneer of in-vitro fertilization, told London's Sunday Times that "male pregnancy would certainly be possible" by having an embryo implanted in a man's abdomen - with the placenta attached to an internal organ such as the bowel - and later delivered by Caesarean section.[7][8][9] Ectopic implantation of the embryo along the abdominal wall, and resulting placenta growth would, however, be very dangerous and potentially fatal for the host, and is therefore unlikely to be studied in humans.[7][10] Gillian Lockwood, medical director of Midland Fertility Services, a British fertility clinic, noted that the abdomen is not designed to separate from the placenta during delivery, hence the danger of an ectopic pregnancy. "The question is not 'Can a man do it?'" stated bioethicist Glenn McGee. "It's 'If a man does have a successful pregnancy, can he survive it?

But if farkying me as a liar gets you through your day at work, I'm all for it.

tortilla burger:While correct, TFA is a solution looking for a problem. I don't think feminists honestly believe that there aren't any biological differences between men and women.

I think the misunderstanding begins with what is the age the feminist. When I was in college in the late '80s, the arguments I studied were mostly to remove any recognizable differences in reference to sex because we are all humans first. They were over-stating their argument to gain whatever political/philosophical ground they could gain. The younger, more modern feminists appear to believe they need to recognize the differences but not make one sex greater than the other. You still see a lot of older feminists who get into active debates on the community channels with younger ones over which philosophy is more important moving forward. It would appear that this argument was positioned to be placed in that particular philosophical arena.

RoyBatty:It depends on who is speaking, and when, but over the years many feminists, and feminist scholars, feminist ideology trained politicians have asserted exactly that there are no differences.

Here is an amusing, interesting Norwegian documentary that documents these assertions in Norwegian society today. It's 38 minutes and seeks to explain how in Norway, one of the most feminist oriented, egalitarian societies, old stereotypes regarding preferences and professions seem stronger than ever.

Brainwash: The Gender Equality Paradox - Documentary NRK - 2011

You can find a few people asserting nonsense anywhere. Calling those people Feminists is like calling bigfoot hunters zoologists.

RoyBatty:Yeah, I can see how calling the Norwegian orthothodoxy, among others, a few people, can work for your argument that no true feminists are like that.

That documentary is interesting, but it is comparing nature vs nurture camps, and those people you are calling the feminist orthodoxy are 'blank-slatists' who think everything is nurture, and nothing is nature. They were picked out by the comedian host of the show for their entertaining and extreme views. I don't know what point you think you are making, but this isn't making it for you.

RoyBatty:t3knomanser: RoyBatty: I provided you a link of Norwegian scientists doing exactly that,

Really, your link contains people making the claim that men can carry children to term? I can't watch it at work, but I very much don't believe you. In fact, I am going to Farky you as a liar, because you are.

Farky me however you would like.

I respond to Chiad's claim that feminists would never claim there are no differences between men and women by providing a documentary where Norwegian scientists do exactly that over and over.

You come in to say that unless I can find someone that says men can give birth that I have failed to make my claim, which of course has very little to do with my claim, Chiad's claim, or the documentary.

I point that out and you respond you need to farky me as a liar.

Hey, go for it. Whatever.

Of course, there have now been at least two men who have given birth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_pregnancy) and Robert Winston, MD, scientist, says that men could give birth.

a pioneer of in-vitro fertilization, told London's Sunday Times that "male pregnancy would certainly be possible" by having an embryo implanted in a man's abdomen - with the placenta attached to an internal organ such as the bowel - and later delivered by Caesarean section.[7][8][9] Ectopic implantation of the embryo along the abdominal wall, and resulting placenta growth would, however, be very dangerous and potentially fatal for the host, and is therefore unlikely to be studied in humans.[7][10] Gillian Lockwood, medical director of Midland Fertility Services, a British fertility clinic, noted that the abdomen is not designed to separate from the placenta during delivery, hence the danger of an ectopic pregnancy. "The question is not 'Can a man do it?'" stated bioethicist Glenn McGee. "It's 'If a man does have a successful pregnancy, can he survive it?

But if farkying me as a liar gets you through your day at work, I'm all for it.

About half way through the documentary, skimming the rest, and I think you're misrepresenting it so far. Is there a specific bit of the documentary that gave you the impression you hold? It's not apparent so far.

Maybe you're conflating the idea put forward by some in the documentary that there is no biological basis for differences in cognition and behavior with the idea that there are no differences whatsoever between the sexes? Even the guy who talks about no differences between male and female brains acknowledges physical differences.

This! While an important element of the pursuit for truth is identifying which ideas are wrong, simply talking about it lends the idea some credence as being worthy of thoughtful evaluation. The idea that men and women are neurologically the same is not even worth talking about because there simply is no evidence, past or present, that supports that notion.

Chiad:RoyBatty:Yeah, I can see how calling the Norwegian orthothodoxy, among others, a few people, can work for your argument that no true feminists are like that.

That documentary is interesting, but it is comparing nature vs nurture camps, and those people you are calling the feminist orthodoxy are 'blank-slatists' who think everything is nurture, and nothing is nature. They were picked out by the comedian host of the show for their entertaining and extreme views. I don't know what point you think you are making, but this isn't making it for you.

I think you need to show that. This documentary was part of a 7 part documentary shown in Norway in 2010. I am not sure of how or why he interviewed those people he did, but the claim on his show is certainly that they represent mainstream thought in Norway, which is one reason he has to go to the US and England to find dissenting views.

Damnhippyfreak:About half way through the documentary, skimming the rest, and I think you're misrepresenting it so far. Is there a specific bit of the documentary that gave you the impression you hold? It's not apparent so far.

Maybe you're conflating the idea put forward by some in the documentary that there is no biological basis for differences in cognition and behavior with the idea that there are no differences whatsoever between the sexes? Even the guy who talks about no differences between male and female brains acknowledges physical differences.

Maybe it depends on what you think I am claiming.

I was only trying to refute Chiad's point that No one on the planet thinks that there are no differences between men and women. The entire point of the equal rights movement is that it isn't okay to treat half the population as less because of those differences

Yes, it is certainly true that everyone agrees there are X and Y chromosomes and they have a great deal of importance. It is not true that historically (or now) many feminist ideologues have not set forth a theory that apart from the most basic biological differences, there are no other differences between men and women. And it's clear that in the case of nature vs. nurture, that documentary shows many examples of that.

Instead of arguing No True Scotsman, perhaps a better argument would acknowledge as I did that it depends on who and when you ask. it depends on who is speaking, and when, but over the years many feminists, and feminist scholars, feminist ideology trained politicians have asserted exactly that there are no differences.

Just as Chiad is getting real tired of people deliberately misunderstanding things., it's also tiring to come up against No True Scotsman arguments that fly in the face of known history.

RoyBatty:I think you need to show that. This documentary was part of a 7 part documentary shown in Norway in 2010. I am not sure of how or why he interviewed those people he did, but the claim on his show is certainly that they represent mainstream thought in Norway, which is one reason he has to go to the US and England to find dissenting views.

Regardless, I note your no true scotsman fallacy.

Dissenting views about nature vs. nurture groups. The documentary has nothing to do with feminism in Norway. Did you even watch it? Note that none of the people on the nurture side interviewed have any ties with any international groups. You've found a weird fringe of the Nature vs. Nurture argument being played out regarding gender differences. It's not that they aren't True Feminists, as you try to paint me fallaciously saying, it's that your so-called evidence is a 7 part series run in Norway hosted by a Norwegian comedian, isn't exactly evidence of anything. And you laughable claim that because the series itself claims it is the mainstream thought in Norway, means it is, is either childishly naive, or breathtakingly disingenuous.

Myria:I wonder what this means for us transgender people. Does my body have female immune responses? If so, was that because of having a female brain structure, or because of the hormones I'm taking?

Myria, this is a fascinating question (well for me anyway, I'm an immunologist). It's a known fact that hormones affect the immune system so maybe taking female hormones could result in more reactive "feminine" immune response..but I don't actually know (I'm going to have to do a lit search on this now...damn you! ;)

As for brain structure, years ago when I took I neurobiology class, there was research that in gay men certain (very small) parts of the brain had a structure that was more similar to what was usually seen in women than in heterosexual men. Now this was a long time ago and I don't know if this has been debunked or if there has been any similar research into lesbians or transgender people. This kind of research is often stopped because of protests (gay people are concerned that is gives a medical reason for what's "wrong" with them, homophobes don't like a medical reason for what should be an "immoral lifestyle choice").

Unfortunately sex and gender issues are hot topics and can lead to big drama and bad science, neither of which are of any help to anyone.

I was only trying to refute Chiad's point that No one on the planet thinks that there are no differences between men and women. The entire point of the equal rights movement is that it isn't okay to treat half the population as less because of those differences

Yes, it is certainly true that everyone agrees there are X and Y chromosomes and they have a great deal of importance. It is not true that historically (or now) many feminist ideologues have not set forth a theory that apart from the most basic biological differences, there are no other differences between men and women. And it's clear that in the case of nature vs. nurture, that documentary shows many examples of that.

Instead of arguing No True Scotsman, perhaps a better argument would acknowledge as I did that it depends on who and when you ask. it depends on who is speaking, and when, but over the years many feminists, and feminist scholars, feminist ideology trained politicians have asserted exactly that there are no differences.

Just as Chiad is getting real tired of people deliberately misunderstanding things., it's also tiring to come up against No True Scotsman arguments that fly in the face of known history.

Goalposts have moved quite a bit, haven't they? You tried saying earlier that this documentary had people who claimed men and women had no biological differences at all, even when it came to having children. When t3knomancer said:

No they haven't. For example, no one has ever claimed that men can get pregnant. Except Danny Devito.

and you replied:

Seriously, I provided you a link of Norwegian scientists doing exactly that, please don't bother watching it, or responding to it, just insert some irrelevant whargarrbl.

Chiad:Just as Chiad is getting real tired of people deliberately misunderstanding things., it's also tiring to come up against No True Scotsman arguments that fly in the face of known history.

Goalposts have moved quite a bit, haven't they? You tried saying earlier that this documentary had people who claimed men and women had no biological differences at all, even when it came to having children. When t3knomancer said:

No they haven't. For example, no one has ever claimed that men can get pregnant. Except Danny Devito.

and you replied:

Seriously, I provided you a link of Norwegian scientists doing exactly that, please don't bother watching it, or responding to it, just insert some irrelevant whargarrbl.

We can read it right in the thread. I guess I've been trolled.

Get off it. I never said anything about pregnancy. That was Teknomanser's nonsense that I was replying to.

Of course we see from Teknomanser's Boobies, his argument was entirely ad hominem, and then we see you lurching from one fallacy to another, from no true scotsman to now, anyone that disagrees with you must be a troll.

This is the central problem with this debate. The words are not interchangeable. A biological male is not necessarily a man. A biological female is not necessarily a woman.

It is willful myopia to say that differing genetics do not account for biological differences. I'm not sure anyone can argue that. What the argument typically entails is that we easily ascribe to unfounded biological differences what can often be ascribed to social or environmental factors... or at the very least, we don't know certain causes but like to posit that "it's just the difference between men and women!" and not "it's the difference we force between men and women".

When a feminist commenter uses the word "woman", it generally does refer to a female person, just statistically, but the concept she invokes is that of gender, not sex. When an opponent of that position is speaking, they use "woman" and "female" interchangeably, and confound the ideas of gender and sex. Obviously if you're not speaking the same language, you're going to argue nonsensically. The article makes no distinction between gender and sex, so it's arguing with a straw feminist that also makes no such distinction, despite the fact that the distinction is central to the debate.

Please, please, PLEASE create medical solutions based on my Y chromosome. I'm all for it. Male and female brains may have the tendency to have particular innate differences... but just like it may once have been stated, with no twing of humor, that housekeeping is "in a woman's blood", more subtly sexist commentary may be made today about neurological differences between sexes that don't actually exist. The contention is not that you can't tell the difference between males and females; it's that you should hold your horses before generalizing behaviors based on those differences.

We used to talk about behavioral differences between races, even going so far as to call some "inferior". We all, by and large, accept that this is wrong even though we are able to find real genetic differences between them. The fact that one is Jewish makes Tay-Sachs Disease a problem; the fact that one is of African descent makes them more likely to have sickle cell anemia. Why, then, do we continue to insist on doing it when it comes to sex?

Chiad:RoyBatty:I think you need to show that. This documentary was part of a 7 part documentary shown in Norway in 2010. I am not sure of how or why he interviewed those people he did, but the claim on his show is certainly that they represent mainstream thought in Norway, which is one reason he has to go to the US and England to find dissenting views.

Regardless, I note your no true scotsman fallacy.

Dissenting views about nature vs. nurture groups. The documentary has nothing to do with feminism in Norway. Did you even watch it? Note that none of the people on the nurture side interviewed have any ties with any international groups. You've found a weird fringe of the Nature vs. Nurture argument being played out regarding gender differences. It's not that they aren't True Feminists, as you try to paint me fallaciously saying, it's that your so-called evidence is a 7 part series run in Norway hosted by a Norwegian comedian, isn't exactly evidence of anything. And you laughable claim that because the series itself claims it is the mainstream thought in Norway, means it is, is either childishly naive, or breathtakingly disingenuous.

That's right. Gender theory in Norway has nothing to do with feminism Link

Re: the documentary, here is an account of it by a Norwegian member of the EU Science Journalist Association. Note he comes nowhere close to claiming as you do that what is discussed in the documentary is not mainstream thought in Norway or the EU, in fact, just the opposite, he confirms it is mainstream thought.

Almea Tarrant:Myria: I wonder what this means for us transgender people. Does my body have female immune responses? If so, was that because of having a female brain structure, or because of the hormones I'm taking?

Myria, this is a fascinating question (well for me anyway, I'm an immunologist). It's a known fact that hormones affect the immune system so maybe taking female hormones could result in more reactive "feminine" immune response..but I don't actually know (I'm going to have to do a lit search on this now...damn you! ;)

As for brain structure, years ago when I took I neurobiology class, there was research that in gay men certain (very small) parts of the brain had a structure that was more similar to what was usually seen in women than in heterosexual men. Now this was a long time ago and I don't know if this has been debunked or if there has been any similar research into lesbians or transgender people. This kind of research is often stopped because of protests (gay people are concerned that is gives a medical reason for what's "wrong" with them, homophobes don't like a medical reason for what should be an "immoral lifestyle choice").

Unfortunately sex and gender issues are hot topics and can lead to big drama and bad science, neither of which are of any help to anyone.

My thoughts on this are similar, though from a genetics standpoint, at least on the homosexual standpoint, and the politics of science getting in the way. Especially where sex and gender are concerned

One of the common theories is that "gay genes" (forgive the un-PCness, but I have no other way to describe them.) confer fertility advantages in females, and cause attraction in males (hence, why the genes have continued to exist). However, good farking luck trying to get anyone to ever sign off on this research. Consider the results:

Scientist finds biological basis for homosexuality, People start 'Fixing' it (Look at the hubbub over high-functioning autistics, Deafness, etc.).

Scientist does not find biological basis for homosexuality: The 'It's a choice' crowd starts in.

Transgender studies, it gets even worse. Results have implications that nobody is going to be happy with.

A lot of pointless huffing and puffing in the fark comments, all completely ignoring this vital piece of scientific research

The intensity and prevalence of viral infections are typically higher in males, whereas disease outcome can be worse for females. Females mount higher innate and adaptive immune responses than males, which can result in faster clearance of viruses, but also contributes to increased development of immunopathology. In response to viral vaccines, females mount higher antibody responses and experience more adverse reactions than males. The efficacy of antiviral drugs at reducing viral load differs between the sexes, and the adverse reactions to antiviral drugs are typically greater in females than males. Several variables should be considered when evaluating male/female differences in responses to viral infection and treatment: these include hormones, genes, and gender-specific factors related to access to, and compliance with, treatment. Knowledge that the sexes differ in their responses to viruses and to treatments for viral diseases should influence the recommended course of action differently for males and females.

which I intend to print out and laminate for next time l suffer the dread affliction of man flu and have to take to the couch with a generous application of medicinal fluids.

RoyBatty:Damnhippyfreak: About half way through the documentary, skimming the rest, and I think you're misrepresenting it so far. Is there a specific bit of the documentary that gave you the impression you hold? It's not apparent so far.

Maybe you're conflating the idea put forward by some in the documentary that there is no biological basis for differences in cognition and behavior with the idea that there are no differences whatsoever between the sexes? Even the guy who talks about no differences between male and female brains acknowledges physical differences.

Maybe it depends on what you think I am claiming.

I'm going by this:

RoyBatty:t3knomanser: RoyBatty: It depends on who is speaking, and when, but over the years many feminists, and feminist scholars, feminist ideology trained politicians have asserted exactly that there are no differences.

No they haven't. For example, no one has ever claimed that men can get pregnant. Except Danny Devito.

Seriously, I provided you a link of Norwegian scientists doing exactly that, please don't bother watching it, or responding to it, just insert some irrelevant whargarrbl.

You seem to be claiming in this prior quote that the link you provided showed Norwegian scientists claiming that there are no differences between the sexes, even so far as t3knomanser's statement about men getting pregnant. Is this not accurate?

RoyBatty:I was only trying to refute Chiad's point that No one on the planet thinks that there are no differences between men and women. The entire point of the equal rights movement is that it isn't okay to treat half the population as less because of those differences

Unfortunately, the documentary you posted (while interesting and thank you for sharing it) really doesn't refute that. They're talking about a specific subset of potential differences in relation to gender roles and neurobiology, and again, this does not mean no differences whatsoever.

RoyBatty:Yes, it is certainly true that everyone agrees there are X and Y chromosomes and they have a great deal of importance. It is not true that historically (or now) many feminist ideologues have not set forth a theory that apart from the most basic biological differences, there are no other differences between men and women. And it's clear that in the case of nature vs. nurture, that documentary shows many examples of that.

Again, is it possible that you accidentally conflated the idea put forward by some in the documentary that there is no biological basis for differences in cognition and behavior with the idea that there are no differences whatsoever between the sexes? What you're saying here would seem to agree with what t3knomanser said as noting that there are basic biological differences (such as the immune response in TFA) and said differences are not somehow denied by "feminist ideologues". In short, what you're saying here would argue against TFA.

RoyBatty:Instead of arguing No True Scotsman, perhaps a better argument would acknowledge as I did that it depends on who and when you ask. it depends on who is speaking, and when, but over the years many feminists, and feminist scholars, feminist ideology trained politicians have asserted exactly that there are no differences.

Just as Chiad is getting real tired of people deliberately misunderstanding things., it's also tiring to come up against No True Scotsman arguments that fly in the face of known history.

In order to put forward a No True Scotsman fallacy, you would need to first find examples of someone saying "that there are no differences". This doesn't seem to be the case in the documentary you posted, and you yourself seem to contradict yourself in that you acknowledge that "feminist ideologues" recognize "basic biological differences". You haven't found a Scotsman in the first place, true or not.

All this aside, what you're saying here is internally inconsistent. Might I politely suggest that you accidentally made the same mistake as TFA: Since some "feminist ideologues" posit no biological basis for differences in cognition and behavior, you accidentally overextended a dislike of this viewpoint towards a false impression of them also saying that there is no differences whatsoever between the sexes. TFA made this mistake of overextending this view to go so far as to cover immune response. It's understandable as a knee-jerk response, and we all do it sometimes, but I highly suggest you abandon this line of reasoning.

draypresct:The author is debating a strawman feminist, not a real person. Less interesting than watching Clint Eastwood debate a chair.

My overall impression of this writer is that his entire viewpoint on "feminism" is based on Rush Limbaugh listening. He may as well have opened with "Angry shrews may disagree with this thinking man's astute conclusion, but who can hear them all the way up in their ivory towers?"

RoyBatty:Chiad: Just as Chiad is getting real tired of people deliberately misunderstanding things., it's also tiring to come up against No True Scotsman arguments that fly in the face of known history.

Goalposts have moved quite a bit, haven't they? You tried saying earlier that this documentary had people who claimed men and women had no biological differences at all, even when it came to having children. When t3knomancer said:

No they haven't. For example, no one has ever claimed that men can get pregnant. Except Danny Devito.

and you replied:

Seriously, I provided you a link of Norwegian scientists doing exactly that, please don't bother watching it, or responding to it, just insert some irrelevant whargarrbl.

We can read it right in the thread. I guess I've been trolled.

Get off it. I never said anything about pregnancy. That was Teknomanser's nonsense that I was replying to.

Of course we see from Teknomanser's Boobies, his argument was entirely ad hominem, and then we see you lurching from one fallacy to another, from no true scotsman to now, anyone that disagrees with you must be a troll.

Whoh now. From your prior comment:

RoyBatty:t3knomanser: RoyBatty: It depends on who is speaking, and when, but over the years many feminists, and feminist scholars, feminist ideology trained politicians have asserted exactly that there are no differences.

No they haven't. For example, no one has ever claimed that men can get pregnant. Except Danny Devito.

Seriously, I provided you a link of Norwegian scientists doing exactly that, please don't bother watching it, or responding to it, just insert some irrelevant whargarrbl.

t3knomanser appears to be invoking the obviousness of basic biological differences, such as primary sexual characteristics ("no one has ever claimed that men can get pregnant") as refuting your contention that "many feminists, and feminist scholars, feminist ideology trained politicians have asserted exactly that there are no differences". In short, that basic biological differences are so obvious that your contention that "many feminists, and feminist scholars, feminist ideology trained politicians have asserted exactly that there are no differences" cannot be true. You respond to this by reiterating your "link of Norwegian scientists doing exactly that", implying that said link contains assertions of no differences between the sexes, even the basic biological differences that t3knomanser was referring to.

Maybe there's some sort of confusion here if this is not what you meant to convey.

On a side note, it's more of a argument from incredulity than an ad hominem ;)